It's fair to say that the Nintendo Creators Program hasn't had the most stellar of reputations - it's designed to allow Nintendo to review and share revenue on YouTube content based upon its games. It's an alternative to Nintendo simply claiming full revenues or issuing copyright strikes, but it also introduces awkward limitations and the very idea of registering and awaiting approval for content is contradictory to what makes YouTube tick. On top of that it's all rather tiered; channels with huge fanbases or that are part of networks seem to manage just fine, but smaller or independent channels have to jump through Creator Program hoops.

At the start of the last weekend the program got even more restrictive, and also hit at the heart of one of YouTube's most vital content types - live streaming. It's now considered outwith the scope of the program, leaving those that want to do it with a couple of limited options. This is certainly unhelpful, as YouTube often encourages creators to live stream as a means to boost their presence on the platform.

Live streaming on YouTube falls outside the scope of the Nintendo Creators Program. You cannot broadcast content on YouTube Live from the account you have registered to the Nintendo Creators Program. If you plan to broadcast content on YouTube Live, you have a couple of options. First, you can broadcast content on YouTube Live from a channel that is not registered to the Nintendo Creators Program. Or, you can cancel your channel's registration to the Nintendo Creators Program and instead, register your videos containing Nintendo’s IP to the program separately. Videos which had previously been registered through your channel would need to be reregistered individually.

It's yet another limitation that means many small-to-medium channels simply won't bother streaming Nintendo content, which is more the pity with the Switch being undeniably popular right now. Some fully committed to devoting their channel almost solely to Nintendo content may be able to make it work with the Creator's Program, but for others that aren't in that position it's a hindrance that simply isn't encountered with other publishers. This is particularly the case with Indie games or major third-parties that simply want as many eyes on their games as possible - games like Overcooked: Special Edition even go as far as to encourage the sharing of gameplay in a loading message.

With Nintendo on a bit of a roll right now with Nintendo Switch, in particular, it would perhaps benefit from relaxing its attempt to 'control' YouTube content. We'll see whether that eventually happens.

The timing of this might not be coincidence, but brought on because of what happened with PDP on live. Which kind of makes sense from a Nintendo standpoint. They realized the scope of live was too wide an avenue.It sucks, but it is Nintendo alas.

Looking forward to learning how to run a multi-billion yen company from the commenters here. Because undoubtedly we here know better than people who have been doing it for decades for a company more than a century old.

You do realize the issue with people such as Pewdiepie, I don't follow him so I probably got the spelling wrong, is probably want helped push this forward. They can't have their brand harmed with such words being said. It is Nintendo's brand so they should have a say in how it is represented.

@Smash_kirby I will never understand this rhetoric. In a hit and run accident, does the manufacturer of the car that was used in the accident suffer any brand damage? Of course not, only the driver themselves get blamed.Why would this be any different for streamers? They don’t represent Nintendo in any way, nor would any sensible person ever relate them to Nintendo or any other studio.

I haven't watched YouTubers in ages due to multiple factors like being busy with contract work and lack of interest in such videos, but from what I gather this may have partially resulted from some Sailor mouth during a live stream or two?

@Snebbu It actually depends to be honest. If you have 10 hit and run accidents and the same model of car happened to be used each time. Eventually that car would start to be known as the "hit and run car" would it not?

I don't agree with this view of streaming content, but at the end of the day nintendo calls the shots. What good is the share button if I have to get clearance to use it. Just seems to much of a hassle to stream content.

@Snebbu In a world where people want to sue the manufacturer of guns for gun related crimes, Nintendo can be an easy target for wacky groups. Nintendo has been conservative in the past as well. If you are in their Program you are a face of Nintendo, like it or not.

You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it!

@Smash_kirby Are people freaking out over A Hat In Time because JonTron is a voice actor for the game? No one is so I highly doubt anyone would somehow connect whatever a streamer would say to Nintendo. This is clearly about money plain and simple.

Absolutely PewDiePie influenced this. Often when adults are trying to figure out why Nintendo does what it does, we forget that children are as much a part of their market as we are. Nintendo's online policies have always been ultra conservative in regards to children's access to the horrifying wasteland of the internet. I'm not saying it's the right decision, but there's no reason to be confused about it, when it's obviously an attempt to preserve their image as a safe haven for children gaming.

@frogopus I don't know man. From my understanding the game industry in Japan do not care for these controversies. If anything it would be Nintendo of America who would care (look at some of their questionable localization changes) but I don't think they have the last say for the Creators Program. It is clearly money related since they have been using the content ID system to claim monetization for quite a while now.

@ALinkttPresent Yes it is. It was my favorite game when I was in grade school, and when we got an NES for Christmas in 1988 and went shopping the next day so we'd have more than just Mario and Duck Hunt to play, there was a game I made my parents buy specifically because it reminded me of Adventure (and had a really cool gold cartridge instead of grey). It might not be my favorite game anymore, but it's easily the most important in terms of setting my tastes in gaming, and indeed entertainment in general.

If your YouTube channel is all about talking smack about Nintendo or any other company on this planet then you're alright. Live streaming contents is just a lazy way to earn free money. With Nintendo taking that away, at least now is the time to find another hobby.

Rip all YouTube Nintendo streamers, some have begun to stream on Twitch as they don’t have any of these restrictions in place.

I get where Nintendo is coming from with this, as anything could potentially happen during a livestream, some of which could potentially hurt the way people see their brand, but I still think content creators should be allowed to still livestream, or that Nintendo should embrace YouTube creators better, as its almost impossible to souly live off of a Nintendo YouTube channel.

@NintenNinja16
Not the case. This only affects people who have linked their entire channel to the creator's program. And nobody links their entire channel because Nintendo then claims royalties from every single video, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with Nintendo. The vast majority of Youtubers simply do it on a video by video basis, and those Youtubers are exempt from this.

Anyone whose entire channel is linked to Nintendo is seen as an affiliate, and Nintendo wants to ensure they prevent any unforeseen circumstances from their affiliates which arise from the nature of unfiltered live streams. Those who submit content through the Creators Program on a per video basis are not seen as affiliates, and as such are not subject to this clause.

@PanurgeJr I played Adventure a lot when I was young. That and a few other Atari games were my first introduction to console gaming and why I have mostly stayed there the vast majority of my life. The NES and Genesis help out too.

If Stampy cannot stream Zelda BotW anymore, my daughter might not be happy. I will make sure to tell her exactly why. Even though I am not totally sure myself. Nintendo can be so confusing or anti-market. Most of the time is makes no sense at the time, but later it becomes clear. But I wonder the real reasons behind this. I have a feeling money is not the only reason. Maybe it is, but I bet there is something else. The main reason she likes and plays Zelda is because Stampy plays it and she remembers what he did. Oh well

@HikingguyDon't think this will affect him. This only applies to people who have linked their entire channel to the Nintendo Creator's Program. And very few people do that because it means Nintendo gets a cut of every single video made regardless of whether or not it's even about Nintendo. I'd say 99% of YouTubers do not link their entire channel. Most submit content on a video by video basis.

I don't really think anyone will be affected by this as far as I'm aware. I mean, obviously somebody somewhere will be affected but, I don't think it's anything you have to worry about. That guy mainly does Minecraft and stuff right? I imagine that's done playing on Xbox or PC... and I can't imagine this person would link their entire channel and let Nintendo take a percentage of every video made for games played on an Xbox

@NintenNinja16 I think most people have the ability to separate the game being played from the person who is playing it and any actions they do while playing the game. I would never not buy a video game because I saw something happen on a live stream. Lets say someone was playing Kirby and the Rainbow Paintbrush and they had their house broken into while they were playing the game live. If I though Kirby and the Rainbow Paintbrush was an interesting game I would buy it nonetheless. I think most people can make that distinction. If that is Nintendo's concern then they should audit every employee of every company whoever makes a game for a Nintendo console, because they might be negatively associated with their brand. There will always be bad people who do bad things.

As a few others have pointed out a lot of it may have had to do with what happened with PewDiePie recently. Lets not forget Nintendo is a company that is highly protective of its brands as well as dedicated to controlling its message. From a company like Nintendo's standpoint a livestream filled with swearing and profanity can be become an easy PR liability. From what I hear Youtube is kinda dying and many are actually migrating over to Twitch

@SomeWriter13 I can definitely relate to that feeling. But I wouldn't say that's only limited to Let's Plays' though.

When it comes to demos, they can either motivate me to buy a game or tire me out of the gameplay quickly. Nintendo tries to negate this feeling by setting trial limits, but that doesn't do the trick all the time.

@HikingguyI think instead of getting 60% ad revenue per video, they get 70% for all videos as a channel. So 10% more ad revenue, but, Nintendo gets a cut of every single video, no matter what it is. Not really worth it, unless your channel exclusively deals with Nintendo gameplay that will be claimed 90% of the time.

This is sensible from Nintendo. Can you imagine how bad the Nintendo would look if certain YouTubers went on an anti-Jew rant or used the N-word while livestreaming Mario Kart or Splatoon 2 (something which they have no control over)? And then it gets reported that the livestreamer has a "Nintendo partner channel"... Whether you like it or not that's a PR disaster.

Also, I think some of the language above is slightly loose. A Youtube "strike" is very serious and as far as I know Nintendo don't do this - they simply claim copyright.

@electrolite77 I never said Nintendo was always right. I merely wanted to ridicule the notion that twenty-somethings anonymously commenting on a fan site were better equipped to make business decisions than professionals who have spent decades maximizing shareholder value and who were hired by a board of directors for a company that has been in business since the 19th century. Nintendo measures profit in Yen, not YouTube cred.

Nintendo will get a lot of bad press from this. It’s bad enough that to put videos that you’ve created with Nintendo games you have to be part of the program with them taking a slice of it. No other developers/publishers are like this.

If they were banning live streaming altogether, then that would seem out of line... but they're not.I get the feeling this is actually on YouTube's side of things... and is likely related to the fact that you cannot include non-Nintendo content on a channel registered to the Creators Program.

Recorded content is easy to tailor advertising to match the content of the videos, so they can guarantee that Nintendo only channels will only contain Nintendo advertising, which Nintendo can claim revenue for and then share that with the content creators.Live streamed content is far more difficult to tailor advertising for... YouTube probably doesn't have a system in place to tailor advertising to live streamed content yet, so they could show non-Nintendo adverts on a Nintendo live stream, which Nintendo cannot claim revenue from... which could cause legal problems if the Creators Programs automated system attempts to.

This therefore just seems to be a temporary solution from Nintendo to avoid the problem until YouTube can get a proper system in place for tailoring advertising on live streams to the content.They actually seem to be being quite considerate to content creators, with this solution, as their only other real option would be to just suspend the Creators Program entirely until the issue had been dealt with by YouTube.

My point still stands. You can ridicule whichever alternative opinions you like, they may be right and the businessmen wrong. Nintendo's hired 'professionals' have been wrong many times, there are many examples in recent years. Same way hired professional politicians, football managers, CEOs get it wrong all the time. Just because someone has been hired to make a decision doesn't out them above questioning and doesn't make their decision right

This may be such an instance as lack of exposure and bad press can harm profitability. Nintendo may have calculated correctly, they may be aware of the risks, or they may have failed to make that connection....

I don't care for livestreaming, so this doesn't really bother me. When I was a kid, seeing screenshots of a game in a magazine was exciting, seeing video footage was an incredibly rare treat. So when we got a new game it was hugely exciting, rather than just "here's that thing that you've already been shown 90% of..." Nowadays you can just watch the entire game from start to finish online for free. Everything is so overexposed now. Good on Nintendo for saving people from themselves I say (though I'm sure that's not their reason).

This is just dissapointing and reaffirms my disdain for any Nintendo Corporate/Business related decisions. I have spent money on games I normally wouldn't buy because I thuoght it looked cool from a livestream. At least in my opinion the youtubers experiences and reactions are the original content that warrent livestreaming, but obviously Nintendo doesn't want anyone saaying anything bad about their games

Weird that you can still live stream, just not on your connected account. And you can still upload every individual video from a non-connected account. Seems like that creates more work fro streamers and for Nintendo but still means everything they make could be put up.

I get it but don't get it. Protecting brand image, sure understood and Nintendo do a good job of it. Then again, they want to build brand awareness and appearl to more gamers. They need to get their games out there and talked about. Nowadays, a big part of that is on platforms like Youtube. While I get that this particular ruling may not affect too many content creators, I am sure this won't be the last move.

This decision was made in order to achieve perfect balance: promosing to make more Classic NES and SNES units made so much sense from a business point they just had to do something stupid too to keep perfect balance.

I think people are forgetting the Creator's Program is purely about making REVENUE from these videos. If you want your own video featuring Nintendo content, you can do it as much as you want. This only affects those that seek to make money by "adding value" to Nintendo content, and only denies them the "one click registration" of their entire single channel to the program. It's some red tape, but basically the point is Nintendo saying they're unwilling to be an "official partner" of live content where they can't pre-screen what happens. Which is a fair position to take from a brand management perspective. Heck their own internal Treehouse live videos likely make the brass uncomfortable at times, let alone uncontrolled 3rd parties.

I see where some might get annoyed but in general, it's not unreasonable to not want to be associated with live events without recourse.....there's a reason the Oscars have a 5 minute delay.

I wonder what N-word spouting #1 YouTuber that constantly undermines the rest of the site but the rest of the youtubers defend triggered this? I think that's something youtubers can ponder while their monetization and ad revenue steadily shrinks for some certainly unrelated reason.

Google have no intention on policing their streamed content so it's no surprise the likes of Nintendo would pull back from supporting streaming.

WHAT?! Are they stupid?
Nintendo is at it again. These kind of dumb decisions were partly to blame for the Wii U's commercial failure.
After all these years, Nintendo still doesn't get how much influence livestreamers have. It's basically free advertisement for their products.

Someone please take the marketing responsibility away from Nintendo before thew screw up again...

I though Nintendo finally got it when they included a screen capture button into the Switch.
Instead, they are showing a lack of vision again, just like the did with leaving out the browser, apps and Bluetooth audio.

@electrolite77 I'm not ridiculing any opinions; I'm ridiculing the mindset behind them, which doesn't consider that Nintendo is a corporation whose primary responsibilities are to earn value for its shareholders and to remain stable into the future. Of course Nintendo, as any corporation, can get things wrong; but too often I've seen people deny Nintendo has reasons for its actions, and that simply isn't true. Nintendo, as any corporation which has stayed in business since the 19th century, has reasons for every decision it makes and every action it takes. Your point may stand, but it doesn't actually speak to my point.

@FinalFrog Not necessarily but they put themselves at much greater risk of having someone incredibly dodgy associated with their games and sullying one of their series purely due to them enabling certain peple blowing up in their faces.

With the type of family friendly games Nintendo specialise in. There is a very real threat of something like that happening I'd imagine they'd want to avoid enabling have the likes of this being associated and making a living off their games:

@FinalFrog They're not safe/immune considering the link I posted shows how a multi-platform but child friendly game can be used by unsavoury characters to become e-celebreties, make a living through a game while earning the trust of children.

I think most companeis should be considering who exactly they're letting be associated with their game and how, especially if the game's audience includes children. And even if it inconveniences certain youtubers Nintendo's approach will prevent something truly awful from happening.

Pfffft. Live Streaming. I remember when 'Live Streaming' meant viewing consecutive screenshots in the pages of your favourite magazine, printed on paper, available once a month, and you were lucky if they decided to 'stream' the game you wanted.

But in all seriousness you have to wonder about Nintendo's motives for this stance. Personally I couldn't give a rat's bottom, as I cannot stand listening to annoying people rant about rubbish when they're playing a game, but it's clearly popular amongst the 'kids'. This just means less exposure of Nintendo games to this young audience, the audience who could be the Nintendo fanatics of the future spending hundreds of pounds on Nintendo products. Strange.